The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
821

That’s entirely up to the CBC, and again, there’s a supply and demand effect going on here. Limit yourself to a very small number of ads, and with all these listeners we’re being told about those ads should be able to command a heck of a price.

Do you know what “quisling” means?

[QUOTE=Hypnagogic Jerk]
Whatever Rick. I don’t know what Radio-Canada’s budget is, and anyway anything I’m going to find is going to be about the CBC/Radio-Canada ensemble, not about whether Radio-Canada Television itself could survive as a private network. I did find this about them having 12.2 % of the market during the week of 12-18 March, which as you can see is much lower than the 27.1 % of TVA. But I don’t find anything interesting on TVA, while Radio-Canada has a whole bunch of great shows. Sorry about that.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure why you’re laying i nthe sarcasm or the “whatevers.” If RC TV is popular, then the people who watch it can support it. If it’s not, then they can’t. I don’t see Global, CTV, Sportsnet or any other television network hitting me up for my tax dollars (well, not as directly.)

If Sportsnet or TSN asked the government for millions of dollars in taxpayer money to broadcast professional sports people would be outraged, and rightly so. Well, what’s the difference? I love sports, and if cable sports networks got taxpayer money they could broadcast even more sports so there would be a greater selection of sports for me to watch, thereby relieving me of the disappointment of tuning in and finding out something I hate is on like UFC. And I don’t see any logical argument for why sports are less valuable or intrinsically worthy than any other form of entertainment. I believe a baseball game is every bit as enlightening, stimulating, and uplifting as a play or concert.

But I wouldn’t dream of suggesting TSN get government money. It’s simply not right for my entertainment choices to be subsidized by you. There’s no positive externality, no market failure that justifies that. If TSN or Sportsnet want to broadcast sports they have to construct a business model that allows for that. (For that matter, even as a devoted sports fan, I am firmly, implacably opposed to government funding for stadiums. It’s economically idiotic and ethically wrong.)

Maybe there IS a case for public funding for Radio-Canada TV; it’s quite possible that there is a public good that cannot be delivered due to market failure. But so far that case has been made by precisely nobody. The cases for the government propping up CBC and RC always boil down to three things, whioch have already been used in this thread:

  1. “I like it”
  2. “Without the CBC there’s be no/less culture.”
  3. “It’s part of our national identity.”

Point 1 is presumably true but it’s irrelevant; I like playing video games but I don’t expect anyone else to pay for my subscription to “The Old Republic.” Point 2 is highly dubious to me; I live in one of Canada’s cultural centers and know oodles of people in that industry and the importance of CBC subsidies to culture is, frankly, way overblown.

As to point 3, the idea that reducing subsidies will somehow damage us as a country is both unproven/dubious, and assumes that CBC, Radio Canada, et al. cannot survive as commercial enterprises. But in fact they have demonstrated commercial savvy in many areas; CBC’s sports coverage is both commercially successful and of extremely high quality (and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a commercially driven part of their programming is one of the things they do best.)

So, make a case. I am open to reasonable arguments about a public good provided by these broadcasting networks. “I like it” or “I know lots of people who like it” just aren’t persuasive arguments - in fact, they’re quite the opposite. I shouldn’t have to pay tax dollars for things because you like them. I should have to pay tax dollars for things that are best delivered by the government as opposed to left to market forces.

822

Dammit, Ken, you Godwinized the thread!

I can’t find anything to argue with in this statement.

823

Would market forces be willing to maintain transmission towers in remote communities with little chance of recouping the costs? Serious question, because someone had to build this infrastructure back before satellite communication, and now it still needs to be maintained. Not everyone is on cable or satellite. That’s really the only reason I can see for maintaining the funding. I assume just about everyone in Canada has access to CBC presently, and I don’t think it would stay that way if it was cut loose.

824

See, now you’re making a case for SOME degree of CBC support. I’m not sure it makes a case for millions of dollars in production costs on pet TV show projects, but for a basic nationwide radio infrastructure, I can see your point.

825

Was that not one of the goals of the CBC - to be able to deliver radio and television communication to ALL Canadians, not just those in the major population centres? Is that still a stated goal (in terms of any laws that have to do with how the CBC is run)?

I think that’s a good goal and not one that will be acheived by the market and private companies.

Are there still a lot of communities where the only TV they can really get (over the air, I guess?) is the CBC, or have new technologies made that irrelevant? In situations like elections or national news, I think ensuring that all Canadians have access to this sort of information is important.

Beyond that, I don’t really know what to think - I’m indifferent to the CBC and I don’t know whether another operating model would make sense or be viable. I just think that if there is still part of the country that is really only served by the CBC, then any decisions made need to consider the impact on those communities.

826

What you are making a case for is government funding for infrastructure to connect remote communities. Not for a publicly funded broadcaster to utilize that infrastructure.

827

I haven’t been avoiding you - your post requires the most thoughtful and intelligent answer I can come up with, and this is a busy week for me.

My first question is - why? Why should the government remove support from something which benefits our society? Why are you against the government’s support of CBC?

Also, I have to address an assumption you have made - the fact that something is popular is not what matters to advertisers. “Is it popular with the target demographic?” is the all-important question. Something which is popular with a demographic that has no money is worthless to an advertiser. If you go with ‘supporting yourself with advertising’, it’s only a matter of time before advertising starts dictating your content to maximize revenue. Once upon a time, it was CBC’s mandate to create programming that spoke in some way to all Canadians, and said important things about Canada to other nations and cultures. That’s too broad a demographic for advertisers to approach.

One of the things that makes CBC unique is that programming decisions are made based on quality, not on sales potential. Or, to put it another way - there are hundreds of radio stations that play the same 1000 songs over and over again. When I’m in the mood to listen to the best of the 60s, 70s and 80s, that doesn’t mean I want to hear the same 24 Led Zeppelin songs that are on the ‘Mothership’ compilation album over and over. It has nothing to do with my taste in music - playing ‘Name that Tune’ with Q107 is just boring because there’s nothing that they play that I haven’t heard at least a hundred times already.

So I’d rather CBC stayed with the government funding formula. It is a benefit to our society, period, and our current per capita support works out to $34. per annum.

If we have to fuck around with it (and I think that’s a bad idea), I’d rather we went for a member-supported format. If we’re stuck with advertising as a sole revenue source, then someone’s going to figure out that Justin Bieber sells more shit to teenagers (and their parents) than Anton Kuerti sells to classical music lovers.

I also have to quickly address Ibanez’ comments about Petro-Can and Air Canada from an earlier post - Gasoline and air travel are commodities; there is no difference whether I fill up at Pioneer, Esso or Petro-Can. Air Canada and West Jet are equally adept at losing my luggage; as long as I end up in the city I asked for, it makes no difference which airline I take.

Radio is different; if I want to listen to classical music, I have one choice other than CBC in the Toronto area (and that other choice is crap!). If I want to listen to jazz, I have one choice other than CBC (which is actually pretty good.) However, unlike with gas and airlines, if CBC fails, that’s it. The private sector has had more than 50 years to come up with a broadcaster like CBC and it hasn’t done it. Radio specifically, and culture generally, is not a commodity.

I have to go practice - I haven’t anywhere near exhausted what I wanted to say, but I’m out of time and not likely to become any more coherent.

828

What benefit to society is there for classical music vs. Justin Bieber (who deserves a good punch in the nose for even existing)? You’re just making a personal value judgement that you expect others to support with their taxes.

Realistically, you can order whatever music you want online without turning on your radio. Why should others support your choice when there are numerous other options for you to be more ‘cultured’ than the masses.

829

I question this assumption, too - what benefit does government-funded tv and radio have for Canada and Canadians?

I do appreciate that, but unfortunately their ideas of what Canadians want to see don’t agree with mine.

That’s a good idea; about all I watch from the CBC is their documentaries online - I could stand paying a buck or two each time I want to watch one.

There still is in Calgary - I don’t know anyone who will voluntarily fill-up at a Petro-Canada if they can help it. :slight_smile:

Radio is about to go extinct, in my opinion - I listen to a radio station about once every six months, if that.

Once again, I am enjoying exchanging ideas with you, Le Ministre. We’ll have to do this in person over beers again soon. :slight_smile:

830

I’m inherently against the government spending money for no identifiable reason.

I have no objection to the government spending money on the CBC if, in fact, it “benefits our society” to an extent greater than if the government didn’t spend the money. But your statement above begs the question. Show me it benefits society.

That’s true but I didn’t make any such assumption. Honestly, I don’t care if you measure “popularity” by people, by people*income, or whatever; it doesn’t matter to me. The CBC is either sufficiently popular to survive as a commercial enterprise or it is not; the precise nature of their market is up to them to figure out. What is for sure is that if it’s as massively popular as I’m constantly told it is, some of the listeners must have SOME money. Surely it’s not just the homeless and the working poor listening and watching?

Here’s an honest question; what quality is it, exactly, that you claim those decisions are based on?

Look, it’s not like I don’t watch CBC; I have relatives on their programs. If CBC television is better than other networks, I honestly am not seeing it, sorry. If you can provide me with any sort of argument that their programming is of high quality, any argument that isn’t circular, I’ll listen, but I’m not seeing it. Their sitcoms and dramas are not especially impressive. The news coverage is good, I guess, but it’s not great. The one thing I think they do well, sports, *is the one thing they consistently make money on. * Here are tonight’s TV listings, beginning after the end of the news at 6:30:

6:30 - Coronation Street, a foreign soap opera
7:30 - Jeopardy!, a foreign game show
8:00 - Figure skating world championships
10:00 - The National
11:00 - George Strombo…

So we’ve got two non-Canadian shows, both of which make money from ads anyway two Canadian shows that make money from advertising revenue, and a second-rate talk show. Wow. Okay, it’s unfair when so much time’s blocked off for figure skating, let’s look at the lineup for next Monday:

6:30 - Coronation Street again
7:30 - Jeopardy!
8:00 - Mr. D
8:30 - Little Mosque
9:00 - The Big Decision
10:00 - The National

That’s just straight up mediocre-ass programming right there. Where’s the quality? Little Mosque is funny sometimes, I guess, but as Prairie-based sitcoms go, it is not nearly as funny as Corner Gas was - a show on a commercial network.

Granted, I’m picking on CBC TV. But look, I don’t understand why CBC TV needs my money. If you want to make a separate argument for CBC radio go ahead, but it isn’t going to be long before we’re debating why we’re subsidizing a dead media, anyway. Terrestrial radio’s not long for the world.

831

So as a result of the federal budget, we have to work to age 67, and we’ll be penniless. :wink:

832

Good one!

I have no problem delaying OAS. I will have to work till 67, but I kinda figured a few years back I wouldn’t be retiring at 65 anyway. 67 sounds about right actually. We’re all living longer.

833

<snerk>

I was very excited to see the penny go. It’s a smart decision and long overdue.

834

Of course. That’s why I said it.

Godwin applies only when it isn’t warranted.

835

It would have made vastly, vastly more sense to lower the income level that makes you eligible for OAS. We are giving OAS money to people who cannot possibly be argued to need it. Giving OAS to someone whose income is $60,000 is idiotic. It is completely beyond any sort of logical defense.

The one and only reason the Conservatives didn’t do that, but instead increased the retirement age, was to buy votes. People are much less likely to be angry over something that is going to happen to them in the distant future than they are something that happens to them now - especially seniors, who have a high turnout rate.

This is a ridiculous decision.

836

I’m not convinced you do know what it means. But perhaps you could point to where the CRTC is collaborating with an invading power.

Actually, maybe you could start by reminding me when we were invaded.

837

Well, at least we’ll have the CBC to watch. :slight_smile:

So, the OAS will be put up to age 67, in about 20 years. I’m 45 right now, so (carry the one…) yup, just the right age to get screwed over. Oh well. I do actually support the federal government overhauling the CPP so it continues to work for everyone. I just hope that this government and future governments will actually do what needs to be done, not just what is politically expedient.

838

It’s a puppet of Quebecor/the federal Alberta Reform Party, a subsidiary of the fundamentalist U.S. Republican Party.

Unequivocally 1812, and since then by NAFTA, the so-called post-911 common military defence of North America (what’s with all the One Way signs) and, of course, the cell-phone-land-line/internet spy bill that probably includes fibre-optic cables leading directly into Richard Nixon’s head in a jar.

You’re either for us or against us, and, of course,all those who are against us are child pornographers.

839

No I wouldn’t, and wouldn’t have to because I’m not a government funded agency. Sure I would receieve access to subsidies but that’s nothing in the same ball park as recieving most of your funding from tax payers.

Sun Media access information requests have been varied and isn’t soley focused on salaires. I.E. They wanted to know how much that shing ding cost tax payers in Toronto, where George Stroumboulopoulos was able to party with his holly wood buddies, which was invite only. They haven’t answered that one as of yet I believe.

840

As a totally random aside, if Vikdun Quisling was named something like “Max Steel”, his name would never have become a byword. :wink: